State v. Jordan Alexander Lickes, 2021 WI 60

In 2012, then-19-year-old Jordan Lickes was charged with four offenses; he pled guilty/no contest and received a mix of jail time and probation (two years on Counts 1 & 3; three years on Count 4). The sentencing court said it would order expungement under Wis. Stat. § 973.015(1m) if Lickes "successfully complete[d] probation and all the terms."
The sentencing court imposed conditions including participation in sex-offender treatment; upon probation Lickes was subject to both court-ordered conditions and DOC rules.
In October 2015 DOC reported multiple probation violations by Lickes (unapproved sexual contact, false information to agent, termination from treatment); Lickes admitted the violations and agreed to 45 days in jail in lieu of revocation.
Lickes completed his probation terms (Counts 1 & 3 in Jan. 2016; Count 4 in Jan. 2017). DOC submitted mixed/confirming forms about satisfaction of conditions.
The circuit court granted expungement for the three convictions despite DOC's reported violations; the State appealed, the court of appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court held that "conditions of probation" includes DOC-imposed conditions and that courts lack authority to declare a probationer "satisfied" where the record shows undisputed violations of those conditions; it affirmed the court of appeals and vacated the expungements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of "conditions of probation" in Wis. Stat. § 973.015(1m)(b)	Includes conditions set by both DOC and the sentencing court	Means only court-ordered conditions; DOC rules not part of statutory "conditions"	The phrase covers conditions set by both DOC and the sentencing court
Whether circuit courts may exercise post‑sentence discretion to deem conditions "satisfied" despite violations	If record shows undisputed violations, court must deny expungement; no post‑sentence discretion to override violations	Circuit courts retain discretion to find probation "satisfied" despite some violations (severity/context matters)	No post‑sentence discretion to declare "satisfied" when undisputed violations of DOC or court conditions exist; satisfying all conditions is required
Application to Lickes (expungement eligibility)	Lickes admitted DOC violations and thus failed to satisfy conditions; expungement improper	Circuit court and DOC certifications indicated satisfaction; expungement appropriate	Lickes admitted violations of DOC-imposed conditions before probation expired, so he did not meet § 973.015(1m)(b) and was not entitled to expungement

State v. Ozuna, 376 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2017) (explains § 973.015(1m) requires meeting all statutory criteria at sentencing and completion)
State v. Hemp, 359 Wis. 2d 320 (Wis. 2014) (discusses expungement eligibility framework for youthful offenders)
State v. Matasek, 353 Wis. 2d 601 (Wis. 2014) (holds the sentencing hearing is the time a court must exercise discretion to make a defendant expungement-eligible)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (gives rules of statutory interpretation applied to the expungement statute)
State v. Purtell, 358 Wis. 2d 212 (Wis. 2014) (recognizes that probation agents may establish rules supplemental to court-imposed conditions)